lifestyle leader

That was Paul Volcker's message to the Future of Finance Initiative, delivered earlier this week. Responding to what he viewed as timid proposals from the private sector on how to go about their business, Volcker proceeded to lay out what he saw as the key priorities. I can't find a useful way to cut this down, so I will quote it as a whole:

Let me just suggest, if I may, the way that I would go about this. I am not alone in this, and in fact I think that I am probably going to win in the end.

First, let us agree that we have a problem with moral hazard. I do not think that there is any perfect answer in dealing with it, but I would suggest that we can approach an answer by recognizing that elements of finance have always been risky and that's certainly true of the commercial-banking system.

I think we need the commercial banking system for more than automatic teller machines. Commercial banks are still at the heart of the system. In a crisis, everybody runs back to the commercial banks. They, after all, run the payment system. We cannot have this global economy without commercial banks operating an efficient payment system globally as well as nationally. They provide a depository outlet for individuals and businesses, and they are still big credit providers for small and medium-size businesses, but they backstop most of the big borrowers as well. The commercial-paper market is totally dependent on the commercial banking market. They are an essential financial institution that has historically been protected. It has been protected on one side and regulated on the other side.

I think that fundamental is going to remain. People are going to think it is important, it is important, it needs regulation and in extremis it needs protection—deposit insurance, lender of last resort and so forth. I think that it is extraneous to that function that they do hedge funds, equity funds and that they trade in commodities and securities, and a lot of other stuff, which is secondary in terms of direct responsibilities for lenders, borrowers, depositors and all the rest.

There is nothing wrong with any of those activities, but let you nonbank people do it and you can provide fluidity in markets and flexibility. If you fail, you're going to fail, and I am not going to help you, and your stockholders are going to be gone, and your creditors will be at risk, and that is the way that it should be.

How can I be so blithe about making that statement? We need a new institutional arrangement which I believe has a lot of support. We need a resolution facility. What can that resolution facility do? If one of you fails and has systemic risk, then it steps in, takes you over and either liquidates or merges you, but it does not save you. That ought to be a kind of iron cross.

In other words: Old Man Volcker is back and he's handing out detentions to the unruly schoolchildren. This is the kind of ballsy speech that only someone with Volcker's authority and experience could pull off.

I find this vision very compelling. There is no obvious reason why "too big to fail" financial institutions should have the competitive advantage of government guarantees while at the same time being free to dive head-first into the riskiest types of financial tools that may or may not be beneficial to the economy. We've just seen what the downside looks like, and it is ugly.

As Simon Johnson explains, this could well be Volcker's moment. It's true that his vision is glossing over the challenging details that would need to be worked out, but so be it. If Volcker can shift the public consensus in his direction, he will have accomplished a great deal.